Hi my name is Thomas Bates and I am debating on the opposition on this side of the debate that soldiers with PTSD should be awarded the Purple Heart .There are three main reasons why you should support the opposition.
1.Soldiers say that this destroys the meaning of the Purple Heart.(militarytimes.com)
2.Trauma not a wound worthy of the Purple Heart
3.PTSD is not are not intentionally caused by the enemy and are therefore not the types of wounds that Department of Defense likes to celebrate.
First of all militarytimes.com has quotes for soldiers explaining why PTSD is not worthy of the Purple Heart.
"It would lessen the meaning of the award," a Marine said about the military's oldest combat medal.
"I'd be ashamed to wear it," chimed in a soldier.
"It's an insult to those who have suffered real injury on the battlefield," wrote an Army intelligence officer.
These soldiers were shot in order to protect their country and were wounded by a bomb or bullet unlike the soldiers who saw a traumatic event and were not injured.
John Fortunato, who directs the Restoration and Resilience Center in Fort Bliss, Texas, said the medal could help service members understand that PTSD is a common by-product of war. And since PTSD is such a common by-product of war soldiers who earned the metal fairly would make the award meaningless. You cant give a person who saw traumatic things happen an awarded for being wounded in battle it is not right and debases the meaning of this metal.
Second of all, Trauma is not a wound worthy of the Purple Heart. If a soldier's post war life is emotionally shattered directly because of his service to his or her country, then it's their own unsoldierly fault; any heroism or quick thinking that led to one's almost getting wounded is not triumphant but rather a gateway to mockery. Unless you bleed -- really bleed -- then you're a "faker." Once said General William C. Westmoreland. People that suffer for PTSD do not bleed so they do not deserve the Purple Heart they only suffer traumatic stress disorder not getting there leg amputated. The problem, according to the Military Order of the Purple Heart, a Pentagon-supported group, is that awarding the decoration for psychological afflictions would "debase" the medal, like a kid watering down the lemonade so he can make more profit. After all, how would an amputee feel if he had to share his honor with someone who's merely suffering from a shattered psyche? It simply wouldn't be fair. (alternet.org)
Last but not least, the reason why they give out the Purple Heart is that a person is injured by an enemy in battle worthy of medical attention (dictionary.com). PTSD does not involve people getting injured by an enemy during battle worthy of medical attention.
The Department of Defense honors these veterans for risking their life with a Purple Heart. Veterans who come back with PTSD did not make as big of a risk if they even did risk their lives. They could of saw a bomb go off and got PTSD. As you can see there is a big difference between injured veterans and veterans with PTSD

You will need to provide a source for this. These soldiers could have suffered flesh wounds and, thus, would hold a biased opinion.

"And since PTSD is such a common by-product of war soldiers who earned the metal fairly would make the award meaningless. And since PTSD is such a common by-product of war soldiers who earned the metal fairly would make the award meaningless."

Are physical injuries not a common by-product of war?

"2.Trauma not a wound worthy of the Purple Heart."

I disagree. PTSD significantly reduces a persons quality of life. They suffer from flashbacks, bad dreams, depression and other effects that are described here:http://en.wikipedia.org...

If a soldier's post war life is emotionally shattered directly because of his service to his or her country, then it's their own unsoldierly fault; any heroism or quick thinking that led to one's almost getting wounded is not triumphant but rather a gateway to mockery."

Heroism, without injury, is a gateway to mockery? Could you explain how you came to this conclusion? And though it may be the soldier's own fault for going to war in the first place , it is clearly not unsoldierly, given that they are serving their country.

"Unless you bleed -- really bleed -- then you're a faker."

I have explained why I believe PTSD is a wound worthy of the purple heart. Also, I believe that PTSD offers strong evidence that the soldier actually fought for his country. Have you watched the video?

"After all, how would an amputee feel if he had to share his honor with someone who's merely suffering from a shattered psyche? It simply wouldn't be fair."

Why should he care? Its clear the soldier suffering from PTSD actually fought. If he were to care about sharing his honor with anyone, it should be the two in the video I posted.

"Last but not least, the reason why they give out the Purple Heart is that a person is injured by an enemy in battle worthy of medical attention (dictionary.com). PTSD does not involve people getting injured by an enemy during battle worthy of medical attention."

Counselling is very expensive and they obviously need it. Luck should not be a factor in whether you receive medical attention or not. If you fought for your country and suffered because of it you should be looked after.

Hello again I would like to move onto my rebuttal,
first off i did state a source militarytimes.com please read my speech before you make idiotic rebuttals like that it just waists my time.

But responding to your argument about the biased soldiers:
these people did have flesh wounds and they are the few soldiers that were physically injured in war and awarded this metal this is there opinion through the true eyes of a great soldier and they think that it is an out rage that people who still can live there lives with only mild mental side effects.

now i will answer your question:Are physical injuries not a common by-product of war?
they are not 1 in 1000 soldiers are injured in battle and 1 in 100 soldiers are diagnosed with ptsd.

Now moving on to you rebuttal of my second argument
Your source is wikipedia which can not be taken seriously because i can go on right now and saw world war II was when we went to Greece and killed almost all of the greek people which i am proud to be one myself.But more importantly your source can not be taken seriously in this debate.

And now moving on to my response to your attack at my definition:"Last but not least, the reason why they give out the Purple Heart is that a person is injured by an enemy in battle worthy of medical attention (dictionary.com). PTSD does not involve people getting injured by an enemy during battle worthy of medical attention."

You mentioned counselling but counselors are not doctors so that point is thrown out.But also PTSD is diagnosed five to six months after the event happened so PTSD can not fit under the definition also PTSD is not always caused by the enemy it can be caused by friendly fire and other events in the persons life and it would be impossible to tell if it were cause by the enemy so the purple heart can not be awarded for PTSD.

Also my opponent did not have any legitimate sources in there speech, they didnt have any arguments why you should support his side only rebuttals to my arguments, and finally he did not state a counter definition so I win this debate because it is the third round and you can not make new arguments in your last speech so i win by rule because your case lacks evidence, sources, and most importantly arguments. So by rule I win because my opponent does not have a case and can not create one since it is the last round and thank you